In 2010 nationally, self-described “conservatives” made up the highest percentage of the vote since 1984. The electorate was 4% more white than in ’08, 7% less “young” (18-29 year olds), and less “liberal” (by 2%), less “moderate” (by 5%).
We can talk about enthusiasm gaps or whatever, but there is an undeniable fact, whatever the reason: nationally, the 2010 electorate was a different electorate that 2008’s. This was not the same “America” changing its mind, this was a different group of people directing our democracy.
Why didn’t the previous Obama voters show up? You can analyze the particulars all you want, but logic gives us two options: they were unable to vote or they were unwilling to vote. Reason rules out the former.
Everyone saw this coming, as well, hence the aformentioned “enthusiasm gap” narrative. What did the Obama crowd do to get those people who had been their supporters in ’08 but sounded disinclined to rouse themselves to vote in ’10? Pretty much they derided them. Chastised them. Sometimes insulted them.
See how well that worked?
Much is made of Obama and his moderate supporters being “pragmatic,” but there is nothing pragmatic about facing the intractable dynamics of social psychology and thinking that intellectually lazy petulance is an effective way to deal with it. Whatever the combination of communication and actual policy action that was needed to bring the ’08 America back the polls was, it’s clear that a strategy of whining-only was going to be a failure, and the easy acquiescence to the President’s desire to whine is the opposite of pragmatism. It is, as any parent can attest, lazy self-indulgence, and it never gets you what you want. Maybe it did in Rahm Emanuel’s and Robert Gibbs’s houses growing up, but one of the things we liked about this President was that he was supposed to be smart.
The root of the national Democratic meltdown was an easy, arrogant laziness. The “captive constituency” thing. The left will always turn out to vote because they’re not as smart as we are, and besides – who else are they going to vote for?
The lesson here is that it’s not just about who else they’ll vote for, it’s also about who they won’t bother to vote for, whether that’s the way any pundit, politician or supporter thinks they should have behaved or not. This isn’t about how someone or other thinks human groups should behave – it’s about how they do behave.
With an outgoing Republican administration and the resultant fired up liberal base, Peter Shumlin did not have Obama’s problem. He may not have that problem in 2012 either, since it’s likely that the ’08 America will re-engage for the next Presidential election.
But that isn’t necessarily a guarantee in Vermont, which everyone assumes will go for Obama regardless of what he does. There is real potential for apathy there and a Vermont version of the ’10 midterms – in which Peter Shumlin will be on the ballot.
Also, Shumlin’s base isn’t going to give him as much leeway as Obama received. That’s because, now that the drive and focus of the general election is wearing down, lots of those voters are remembering “Challenges for Change,” and are concerned that now Governor Shumlin, along with Speaker Smith and likely Senate Leader John Campbell could feel empowered to deliver unto us some sort of Challenges-for-Change-on-steroids, given the new environment. SHumlin will inevitably do that reachy-outy thing and appoint a bunch of conservatives – even Republicans – to positions in his administration. Lefties in Vermont will be looking closely to see that they are just as well represented in the true positions of power in this administration.
It’s one thing to have the Governor’s office door opened for progressives, it’s another thing whether there’s a seat for you at the table inside, or if you’re just expected to stand around hoping someone will notice that your there. It’s a difference liberals won’t be able to be duped about.
Running and winning elections is about controlling the variables. Shumlin’s progressive base is one of those variables. Obama has showed us the wrong way to control that variable. The right way is obvious: be responsive and respectful of the base, and come through on promises (or at least make honest attmpts to meet those promises). That’s not always easy. It’d be easier to kick back and take the left for granted – deal with them when you feel like you absolutely have to.
Stepping outside what someone like Shumlin may like reality to be isn’t the easy way to do things, but as history has shown, it can be the pragmatic way.
And we like pragmatism on the left.
Those who were tossed under the bus objecting to being thrown under the bus:
When a bully is beating the crap out of you, who will you hate more: the bully, or the “good” friend who just stands there while you scream for help?
Nationally, the democrats were just handed the answer to that question in the form of a big fat “F-you.” Let’s hope they hear it loud and clear, because failing to learn the lesson twice in a row will lead to unmitigated disaster in 2012.
And let’s hope our newly elected officials here in our pretty little bastion of nominal sanity can hear the message’s echo. There’s not a lot of time to make a discernible difference in people’s day-to-day lives.
When my family was hungry this summer, stooping to borrowing money for food, while watching democrats offer up yet more monetary sacrifices to the ugly supply-side gods of Wall Street greed, you can guess where my hatred was focused.
When I was reduced to driving an unsafe car whose wheel could fall off at any moment, because I couldn’t scrape up a couple of hundred bucks (we’d tapped out all our friends and family for food), my hatred was directed toward those who had claimed they were on my side, yet who couldn’t find more than a few token pennies to throw toward people like me, but yet managed to find unlimited money for handouts to billionaires and the fraudulent bankers who destroyed the economy.
The democratic leadership doesn’t seem to be able see or hear real people. But those same real people are the only ones who can put/keep them in office.
Ordinary people needed those billions to keep from starving (which, btw turns out to be the most effective weight loss plan I’ve ever found – 26 lbs in 4 months, no effort, just a nagging, gnawing ache in my stomach at all times). Other families needed it for the same reason, and yet more needed it to keep a roof over their heads.
But the democratic party chose to be “pragmatic” with our lives. Turns out, a lot of us were “pragmatic” with our votes in return (for the record, not me, but I’m a political activist, and much more attuned to the falsity of the “populism” spouted by the right than your typical too-busy American).
Of course, when people like me tried to deliver the message that there was going to be a bloodbath because the party had lost the hearts of those who most needed it to take their side against corporate greed, we were called whiners and told to shut up. Fat lot of good that did.
First off, I don’t think the downfall of national Dems was “laziness” or a complacency with the status quo. Things got done. Some of those things angered the Fox News crowd. And those Dems, or barely Dems, that represented the Fox News districts got the boot. They were moderate, swept in by the Big O wave in districts that had never been rep-ed by a Dem before. They went along with Obama, more often than not, on policies that the far Left were disappointed with and the Right were enraged with, and they failed their constituents.
The difficulty in advancing a liberal/progressive/whateveryouwanttocallit agenda is not the make-up of Congress, it is the make-up of the American populous as a whole. Let’s face it, not everyone is on board with Sweden-style health care. Maybe they are ignorant, maybe they are stubborn, but it is evident that the Tea Party/Republican Party believes in what they are fighting for, so this large national loss should not be regarded solely as the downfall of the Dems, but mainly as the rise of the Tea Party.
Which gives them a lot of responsibility (which I don’t think they’ll fulfill), but it also gives me a lot of respect for the pragmatic leaders among both the Dems and Republicans.
Look, things are not homogeneous here. Some folks want single payer, some universal, some a Medicare for all, some a public option, some want to keep the status quo, some want a true free market. While we (me, you, and many many others) desire a speedy product that satisfies our socialist (in the kindest sense) desires, perhaps we need to wait for the rest of the country to come on board. It takes time. That is what a pragmatic political view is all about, in the end; moving the center, changing the views of the opposition, by small change.
And anyway, I don’t thing Shumlin will have the same problems as Obama. First off, closing VY is not like closing Gitmo: Vermonters like what Shumlin had to offer in the election, and they showed it. It seemed at times as if he was being too risky by appealing to the fringe, but I guess the results show otherwise. Our controversial issues are not really that controversial. We are a state full of pragmatists!
Secondly, Shumlin is not leading a country. He is leading a state. There are more local problems, and (likewise) more local solutions. On this smaller level, there is the opportunity for exploration. For advancement not agreed upon nationally, but tried locally. Woman’s suffrage was brought about by states first, and then, when a dozen states were on board, Congress took it up. The same can be true of gay marriage, environmental legislation, or health care!
That is, in light of the national slaughter of liberals, I am still looking up. Because I am sure that here in Vermont we can lead the way still on progressive national issues, and I’m sure that we will.
With a margin of under 4K votes and a campaign with his Republican opponent running such a distasteful campaign, he is going to have to keep in mind that the GROUPS who came out so strong for him with Boots on the ground, the people who made the calls and knocked on the doors and provided the steam for the campaign, will need to be considered often. Should the Republicans find it possible to run a person next term with a strong record on Womens Rights…. or a GOOD Environmental record, or SOME positive labor background???
This was a very close one… the issues were huge but the results were divided well. Peter will need to continue to make the calls that keep the network together. Forgetting how he got there could be a real door opener for the people who would like to see him as a one term executive..
Dance with who brungya applies…
As an early supporter of Doug Racine for governor, I nevertheless worked hard to elect Peter Shumlin. I am confident that Peter knows we have high expectations of him and will hold him fully accountable for maintaining his stance on campaign issues of great importance to us.
I like to think that we will not make good policy a victim of the effort for perfect policy, but where those lines are drawn may be subject to considerable debate.
Agreed that enforcing accountability is a valuable role for Shumlin supporters and this site to play. I’m uncomfortable with the comparisons to Obama’s relationship with liberal base. It feels like fighting the last war rather than tailoring the right strategy for our unique circumstances. While Obama deserves plenty of blame for our current predicament at the national level, so does the liberal base. Many on the left spent so much time criticizing, that Obama was left to stand alone on those issues where he did the right thing. Example: when he went to Congress for money to close Gitmo, 96 senators voted against him. The liberal base did not have his back, they put no pressure on those 96 senators, because they were too busy criticizing his cabinet choices. It was downhill from there.
Let’s make sure we support Shumlin when he’s right with as much vigor as we criticize when he’s not. A Democrat without a constituency on the left and with opponents on the right willing to do and say anything to win, can’t accomplish anything. A good start might be to compliment the choice of Bill Lofy for the transition team – as far as I know a Wellstone Democrat with great credentials.